horsepigcow

I am in love with Sheryl Sandberg.

Not a romantic love (though she is pretty attractive as well as inspirational), but the female equivalent of Man Crush (is there a name for this?). I gobble up any videos of her on the web. I read and highlight every second quote by her. I find myself dreaming about meeting her someday and giving her a big hug and gushing about how grateful I am that she is in the world and how incredibly brave she is for speaking up from her position.

She is a woman who has ‘made it’ who isn’t afraid to say that it was a struggle to get there. She’s honest enough to talk about the times when people tried damaging her reputation, targeting her in large because she is a woman:

Do I believe I was judged more harshly because of my double-Xs? Yes. Do I think this will happen to me again in my career? Sure. I told myself that next time I’m not going to let it bother me, I won’t cry. I’m not sure that’s true. But I know I’ll get through it. I know that the truth comes out in the end, and I know how to keep my head down and just keep working. READ MORE

The comments on the article are telling of the underlying biases and attitudes that hold back women. And the same arguments against Sheryl’s honest telling of her trail to success are railed against many other women who are telling the story as it happens: “You are imagining things.” “Stop blaming everyone else for your failures.”

In fact, I watched a kickass woman I admire (and ALSO have a girl-equivalent Man Crush on), Sarah Prevette, experience the same type of comments after being featured in the Globe & Mail by Amber MacArthur. One commenter called Sarah a woman “looking for excuses.” Is this the same Sarah Prevette I know who is the LAST person on the planet who looks for excuses?

I know the struggles. I feel them. I started a Google Group to discuss how we can combat the subtle sexism that Sarah talks about because I’ve had the same conversation with every kickass woman CEO, founder, executive and entrepreneur I know. It goes like, “They don’t say it, but I *know* they treat me differently. They aren’t taking me seriously because I don’t act like a man and when I act like a man, they call me difficult.”

How many VC meetings have I been in where the VC turns to me and says, “Yeah. I just don’t get it. Maybe I’ll show it to my wife.” BURN! Really? Would he say that to a man pitching him the same concept?

Hell, even the VCs (or angel Paige Craig in this case) are talking about how the subtle sexism works and getting shut down. And I look at the companies getting funded…UBER funded…versus those NOT getting funded (or those getting underfunded) and I see lots of women in the underfunding/non-funded category while the same damned ideas are getting money thrown at them when they are led by men.

I had a candid conversation with a prominent tech reporter who told me s/he pitched an undercover story on exposing the VC bias toward young male founders (planting the same idea with a different gendered CEO in front of the same VC firms) who was told it would never happen because it would be too scandalous and the media company would get blacklisted.

But I get the messages from people saying, “Stop talking about this stuff. You’ll only get blacklisted yourself.” and I think about Gaslight, the 1944 Classic Movie with Ingrid Bergman (one of my faves of all time). From the description:

Years after her aunt was murdered in her home, a young woman moves back into the house with her new husband. However, he has a secret which he will do anything to protect, even if that means driving his wife insane.

It’s an amazing metaphor for how many women in technology are feeling today. We are sure we see the signs that discrimination still exists, but then they are explained away or we are told “you are being crazy/blaming/whiny/etc.” and we start believing that we must be imagining it. It doesn’t stop us from moving forward, but it takes its toll emotionally and physically. It wreaks havoc on the personal lives that help re-vitalize us. It isolates us. It pits women against one another. Soon we believe our own insanity.

The problem is that it isn’t obvious. It’s, as Sarah pointed out, SUBTLE. There isn’t a glowing example to point at and say, “See? Look at that? I was right!” It happens in whispers. In comments. In unchecked biases. In rules that favor certain types. It displays itself in absence.

I don’t know how to name it, fight it, overcome it or even really expose it. But like Sheryl, the best I (or any other woman I know) can do is to keep our heads down and work hard and push through it so more of us get into power positions like Sheryl and even out the deck. On the way we are going to think we’re crazy and feel isolated and understand we need to work 5x harder to prove that we are worthy of our successes. We need to toot our own horns and ignore those who call us ‘self-promoters’ (I’ve heard this insult countless times). We need to seek out amazing men who get it and who will help us through their power to get there. We need to stop apologizing, using passive language (I do this too much) and just say, “I know what I’m doing. I’m awesome.” We need to come together and support one another – name it, but then change it.

Thank you, Sheryl. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you, Nilofer. Thank you, Cindy. Thank you every single woman who is on the Google Group, who has stood up, who continues to fight and who is paving the way. I’m in love with all of you.
___________________

Cool! My post has been picked up by:

• Ben Rooney at WSJ – The Subtle Sexism in the Tech Industry
• Alyson Shontell at Business Insider – Hey VC’s! Stop Saying This to Female Entrepreneurs!
• Rachel Sklar at Change The Ratio

Four and a half years ago, I started talking about how the currency in online communities is social capital…or Whuffie…and subsequently wrote a book on the subject. I had gained enough social capital in the online community space to be blessed by a book publisher to write a book as a thought leader on the subject. I didn’t even need to knock on any doors.

The social capital I gained that gave me leverage was, largely, through connections. Sure, I knew what I was talking about. I was living it. Studying it. Creating it. I was fairly knowledgeable on the subject (although the subject was -and still is- still a fuzzy area, so nobody can really gain expertise in it). But the biggest reason I gained enough leverage to get a book deal was because of my connections. I could get quotes from Michael Arrington, Jimmy Wales, Biz Stone and other movers/shakers in the biz. Others blogged about my posts or sent them around to others (through my stats, I could see more of my posts were being passed around by email than any other method – and usually within organizations).

And, yes, I worked hard. And, yes, I was early enough to stand out. And all of that. But I’d say I had unique access to networks because:

• I’m a white, middle-class, educated woman
• I’m attractive
• I had a whole lot of years of opened doors behind me that came from me being the above

So when I read Jon Bischke’s post “What Really keeps Poor People Poor” I cheered out loud for his cogent statements like:

“(P)eople from lower-income families aren’t able to gain access to the same networks that higher-income families have access to.”

and

“Poverty is not deprivation. It is isolation.”

I feel like I’m living proof of the advantage of the power of networks on my income every single day. I was raised in a small town in Alberta. I had never heard of the Venture Capital world. Who knew there was a rather large group of people who gave money to another group of people in exchange for a company that is worth nothing (but may be worth something someday)?

I discovered this world in the early 00′s and was fascinated by it. Now I’m in the midst of raising money for my own company in this manner. My company will be valued at a guestimated amount of money based on a guestimated future marketplace. It’s pretty wild if you ask me. Of course, this happens because those guestimated numbers and future marketplaces actually pay off…and sometimes in bigger numbers than dreamt up. So it’s worth the gamble for the investors.

But the part of this whole world that really baffles me is the access part of it. Certain people have access and certain people don’t. Not that there is some bouncer at the door that stops one group of people and allows another, but knowing someone means the difference between getting a meeting and not getting a meeting. And then there is a difference between how that meeting goes depending on the type of introduction.

Introduced by a friend of an angel/VC? Pretty good. May be more patient with you and give you good feedback. Not a slam dunk, though. Introduced by a portfolio company CEO? Pretty good. Not a slam dunk. Introduced by a portfolio company CEO with a good exit? Awesome. Depending on the level of enthusiasm from the CEO (better yet, why not bring them along), could be a HUGE slam dunk. Introduced by another angel/VC? Awesome. But only if that angel/VC says they are wanting to invest. Then it’s pretty much a slam dunk. If it’s a ‘pass off’ (“I met with them and am not investing, but you may want to”), it is not.

Y-Combinator is a slam dunk because of Paul Graham and his connections. Accelerators have been around for ages. This one is special because of the man behind it. Because of his connections. The reason why the value of many other accelerators is questionnable is because they don’t have the same prestige. And that prestige has everything to do with social capital.

Why do people go to conferences? The connections. Why do people go to university/college? The connections. Sure, you can learn stuff and grow your talent, but as Bischke’s article states, you can get access to all sorts of knowledge, talks, lectures and resources online, too. It’s not the content, it’s the connections. And when the barrier to entry is high (Conferences like TED or The Lobby – schools like Harvard), it’s a signal that you now have access to those connections, too.

Over and over again, I’m observing how valuable connections are. Social classes aren’t dead by any means. If anything, they’ve become more powerful than ever. In a world that is incredibly connected and competitive, it’s getting more and more important to separate the signals from the noise and social class is an easy way to validate a strong signal.

For the record, I’m not endorsing this. I’m merely observing it. I’ve been told repeatedly that the web creates meritocracies, but from personal experience, I’ve seen that the world that controls the web also reinforces social hierarchies. It’s a bit confusing. Doors are opening, but getting through them is easier for some than others. Knowing this makes it easier to break into ‘the club’. Unfortunately, entry to the club is easier for some than others.

You can have the world’s coolest idea, be amazingly smart and have executed perfectly, but without that ‘social proof’ (ex-Googler, former exit, introduced by the right people, etc.), you will have a tougher time getting through the noise. I sometimes wonder how many companies have failed because they ran out of money before they could get through the ranks. I’ve heard stories first hand. There are probably many more.

Hopefully programs like Angela Benton, Wayne Sutton and Toby Morning’s NewMeAccelerator will go a long way towards creating connections for those previously on the outside. And personally, I’d love to answer Bischke’s call for increasing access to networks for those on the outside. As I work my way inside, I’ll continue to share my own experience with access, then when I exit and set up my own venture firm someday, I’ll focus on finding, meeting with, working with an mentoring those with great ideas.

So I was sitting on my sofa having my nails done on a Sunday night after a lovely day filled with Spa, light shopping, stopping for an ice cream treat, going for a nice run and generally enjoying the day and I stopped and thought to myself, “Hey. Wait a minute. What’s wrong with this picture?”

Well, what was wrong with this perfect picture is that I was spending this amazing Sunday with someone I call my boyfriend. And, according to me not too terribly long ago, that was NOT going to happen.

It turns out that, with the right partner, love and greatness are not mutually exclusive. They can exist together! I’m cautious to claim that my experiment has been proven and is completely conclusive as I have yet to achieve much in the department of greatness and the love I’m enjoying is pretty new (only a couple of months in), but I thought I’d share some observations on what kinds of conditions need to exist to make this happen.

Condition #1: Listen to The Force

The Force is an incredibly geeky way to say that there is something completely uncontrollable about this. It’s that moment that cannot be forced when you meet that person and think to yourself, “Holy crap. I just saw a flash of us growing old together.” And the worst part of The Force is that it’s usually what happens to the man, not the woman. We (as women) are too busy reading dating advice columns and making lists of what we need in a man, then going on dates and assessing whether or not this specimen fits that list. But that’s okay. That’s what we do (or at least most of us). Women are by-and-large rational daters. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but we are. That’s why this quote from My Blue Valentine really struck a chord with me:

I feel like men are more romantic than women. When we get married we marry, like, one girl, ‘cause we’re resistant the whole way until we meet one girl and we think I’d be an idiot if I didn’t marry this girl she’s so great. But it seems like girls get to a place where they just kinda pick the best option… ‘Oh he’s got a good job.’ I mean they spend their whole life looking for Prince Charming and then they marry the guy who’s got a good job and is gonna stick around.

It’s kind of true. Carlos ‘knew’ minutes into our first date and he was going to fight to make me ‘know’ in spite of my protests of being “too busy for a relationship.” And he fought in the most gallant, amazing ways that really took me by surprise and made me think, “OMG. This man is crazy and awesome and makes me feel loved like I’ve never felt before. And in every other relationship I’ve been in, that has been what I cried about. How can I pass him by?” He made me want to fight for him, too.

It can’t be just something. It’s gotta be THAT ONE THING. Your life is big, girlfriend. Your love should be, too.

Condition #2: This is a Drama Free Zone

Yes. Yes. Love and relationships are all about compromise, right? Sure…when it comes to planning activities and sides of the bed. But too many compromises means that there is a blatant mis-match. And if there are compromises to your life’s dream and work, this won’t work.

Love and greatness only works together if it works together. If the love is full of drama and fighting and resentment and giving up time doing what you love to do, then it will rip you apart, cause you stress and leave you with nothing in the end.

Funny thing is, I find myself working more efficiently these days because I want to have time to cuddle up and watch a movie later on instead of working until 2am. The other advantage to meeting someone in our late 30′s is that we already have lives established before one another. Both of us have plenty of things we do independently. He has a career and buddies and activities he enjoys doing. And when we can, we invite one another cause we like being together. But there isn’t pressure to spend a certain amount of time together. Just quality time when we do.

No drama. No resentment. It’s all about supporting roles.

Condition #3: Learn to Receive

As a woman conditioned to never need anyone, this has been the hardest thing for me to get used to. Carlos is a giver. He thinks about how he can make me happy all day long. Really. I know. This is awesome, right? Only thing is it felt like an embarrassment of riches when I first started experiencing it. I didn’t know what to do with any of it. I told him to stop because I didn’t have the time or energy to give back. But he told me he didn’t care. It makes him happy to make me happy.

Why the heck was this so hard for me?

Then I decided to just let go and accept it. Accept the attention, the generosity, the amazing little things he did: creating mini-adventures, leaving notes for me to find, setting up private tumblr accounts to record ‘our private thoughts to one another’, buying stuff he’d see me post on Buyosphere as WANT!s, and continuing to formally ask me out on dates…and guess what? I started to freakin LOVE it. I became that princess I was always told I shouldn’t expect to be. And, dammit, I was ripped off before! This feels great. I used to be the one who came up with the cute ways to say “I love you”. Now someone else thinks of it for ME. And because I know how to give it back, when I have the chance, I give it back.

I’ve seen this part trip up loads of ambitious women. They’ll reject all of the men who come along and want to pamper them because they’ve been so conditioned to believe they need nobody that they can no longer accept someone who wants to make their days brighter and easier. Egad, I have someone who wants to pick me up at the airport and offers to do my errands. I needed that. And I’m not afraid to admit it.

Condition #4: Pay Attention to the Little Things

As listed in the previous condition, Carlos is the master of the gesture…big and small. And I hate to admit it, but it’s the small gestures that get me the most. The other day I was rifling through my wallet for a receipt and I found a note that told me I rock his world. It was just a small handwritten scrap ripped out of a notebook, but it made me smile bigger than I’ve ever smiled before.

I’m busy. He’s busy. Changing the world is a big time-suck. So those little gestures are perfect morsels of happy to infuse the middle of my day. They don’t take an hour of my attention and right after I enjoy the burst of joy I get from something like a note or a text message, I can re-focus on my task at hand. Even better, that little reminder that I’m adored improves my overall mood and ability to handle the road ahead.

It doesn’t have to be all big displays and full attention grabbing gestures. Those small bits are perfect bite-sized breaks that keep the stress levels low.

Condition #5: His High Conscientiousness Levels

I never thought that I would find stability SO attractive in a man. I thought I was looking for an artist or another entrepreneur…someone who faced the world with the same careless abandon that I do. Then I met Carlos and fell in love with the fact that he has an amazingly high level of conscientiousness.

Not that it’s impossible but dating fellow entrepreneurs, dreamers, artists and other equally unstable, but exciting guys, will rarely fulfill the previous 4 conditions. Their FORCE is focused on changing the world, with unstable usually comes HEAPS of drama (anxiety, depression, moodiness, aspergers, etc), no time to give or think of how to make me happy through amazing little gestures (“Hey, I have a world that needs me and you are whining about not being asked out on a date? Selfish!”).

Having one partner who is focused on making the relationship and home life exciting is essential. He needs to be conscientious. Almost like a…um…wife. I know that sounds sexist, but the metaphor is still unfortunately recognizable.

And this doesn’t mean that Carlos or any other guy that is highly conscientious is a passive weenie. Not in the least. I find doormats unattractive. That man still needs to have all of those basic qualities – strong, smart, funny, attractive, fun, fit, healthy, sexy, cultured, reliable, interesting, stylish, etc. – that are part of my ‘list’ in order to be such a big part of my life.

And yes, I know what you are thinking: That is a TALL ORDER! A freakin impossible list of conditions ON TOP of our previously freakin impossible list of qualities! There is no WAY on earth that I’ll ever find someone!

Well, I did and that is a bloody miracle. And if I can, you can.

And, for the love of god, don’t settle for less because without all of the above, love and greatness will have a tough time co-existing. Without #1, love won’t happen at all (and I know you can’t control it. Deal with it). Without #2, you’ll exhaust yourself emotionally. Without #3, you’ll lose the romance (I’ve been in that relationship and it’s heartbreaking). Without #4, you’ll feel resentment. And without #5, you’ll never see one another anyway.

Now…I need to take these same principles and adjust them for raising money…or buy a lottery ticket, because I’m feeling quite lucky!

Just recently, I was tasked with finding women to attend a prestigious event that would put them on a deep social level with venture capitalists, angels and fellow startup entrepreneurs. As I pay close attention to the presence of other women in my field (startup founders), I felt this would be a simple task. It is not.

The issue is as follows: the core limitation of the invitation is that the startup founder cannot also be working as a consultant. That person has to be ‘all in’ (as I discussed in my TEDx talk recently, doing your startup alongside consulting/working means you aren’t all in). Because of the lack of funding/underfunding for women-led startups, many female startup founders have had to resort to doing some bitwork on the side. I know from personal experience (not yet getting any funding save bits and pieces of F&F money), I’ve been tempted to do some consulting in order to pay my bills. I’ve only refrained because of time issues. I’m still broke.

The second part of the issue is: though this event is reasonable as compared to events like TED, Davos and The Summit Series, it still costs more than $1,000, which, for anyone who is bootstrapped, is not only tough to swing, but pretty much impossible.

And the ultimate issue is: this becomes a chicken or the egg scenario where an unfunded entrepreneur needs to create those social bonds with people in positions of power and wealth in order to get funded, but because she doesn’t have the funding, she cannot actually attend.

I did something pretty cool a couple of weeks ago. I went running with Rob Hayes, a partner at First Round Capital. We met for about an hour, then we put on our sneakers and went for a 45 minute run. I already knew that First Round had a conflict and couldn’t fund us, but it didn’t hurt to bond anyway. Rob thought it was an interesting way to get his attention and commented, “I think people should conduct all pitches this way.” We ended up talking about everything but my startup and, at the end, he made oodles of valuable introductions for me. It’s a meeting I’ll never forget and probably one he won’t either.

This is sort of akin to the idea that the deals take place on the golf course. It’s true. Social connections and feelings of camaraderie will give anyone the leg up to getting funding and making deals. This is why the ‘old boys networks’ are so powerful. Those relationships are the key to making things happen. And herein lies the rub.

People love to hate on Affirmative Action: the policies that are meant to give equal opportunity to minorities by setting a minimum hiring threshold for women, people of color and otherwise non-Caucasian able-bodied males. I won’t go into a debate about this as there are, of course, issues with the implementation of such policies, but I will say that a ‘leg up’ is something that comes quite naturally to certain groups: ones that can afford to socialize with those with money and the power to help.

No, I don’t want to be funded because I have boobs. But sometimes I feel like I’m NOT being funded because I have boobs. As I’ve been at this for a while now (things haven’t changed since I gave that TEDx talk), I’ve observed patterns emerging in the barriers to raising money:

• I’ve heard repeatedly, “This is not a market that I’m familiar with and I’m not comfortable investing where I don’t understand the market,” in response to the fact that Buyosphere’s main audience is women who make the majority of the household purchases.
• The second most heard excuse, “We have a conflict,” which roughly translates to “I don’t understand the market and the future of this market and get that there are multiple ways to approach the democratization of commerce, and haven’t figured out that I need to diversify my portfolio in this area.”
• The third reason for passing, “We have too many deals going on right now,” which is true. There is a frenzy of investing happening at the moment. Apparently in men (according to the WSJ as well as talking to other women like me who are struggling). I’d kill to be a teensy part of that frenzy. We’re looking for a much smaller number than is being thrown around in these deals.

I have a private Google Group for female entrepreneurs where we discuss these issues. There are about 100 members. We try to keep it strategic so as not to get bogged down in the frustration, but it’s not easy when we hear news day after day of this company raising multiple millions off of a pitch deck and that company raising millions within weeks of coming up with an idea with no clear revenue model after most of us have launched, have users, have a revenue model and long-term visions that appeal to THE BIGGEST MARKET online: women.

And it’s not that anyone is overtly sexist or trying to block us from advancing. It’s not malicious at all. It’s just that those with the money don’t understand our markets. I can share the charts and statistics and big, fantastic numbers showing the growth and the potential, but it doesn’t really register. They don’t understand the phenomenon behind Haul Vlogging and Makeup Tutorial obsessions (yes, that does say over 27 Million views). They certainly don’t understand Swishing. And yes, there are women in VC roles, but not very many. They are also highly in demand and we cannot paint them all with a ‘you’re a woman, so you’ll get it’ brush. Quite often they’ve survived tech finance because they can think like a dude.

Running with Rob didn’t cost me anything, so I was quite proud of my creativity in that one. But there are oodles of events that are going on that are enabling the bonds between the money people and budding entrepreneurs that DO cost money. And the fact that I’m having a helluva time finding women who can afford to attend just one event (one that is pretty damned cool if you ask me) is a bit troublesome. And Women 2.0 and Women in Tech events are awesome, but don’t quite bring the same advantage as mixed prestigious events. Perhaps an effort to get more women to these events (scholarships? comped first time passes? just freakin funding us and making the effort to learn more about our market?) would help increase the rate of women attending and break the cycle of the same types of people getting funded and encourage more activity from female entrepreneurs.

Like I said, I don’t want to be funded because I have boobs, but I also don’t want to run into barriers because I have boobs. Speaking of which, I have to figure out some new ways to bond with the movers and shakers. Anyone into mani/pedis?

I’ve been a total basket case lately. There wasn’t a single day that went by that I didn’t have the thought:

“What was I thinking? I can’t do this.”

…go through my head. But lucky for me (and Shwowp) the thought that would instantly follow that one was:

“I can DO this! WE can do this!”

On August 26, 2010, I applied for Shwowp to participate in the Startup Battlefield at TechCrunch Disrupt. I saw someone post the event to Facebook and my instant thought was, “I would love us to be launching there.” I thought it didn’t hurt to apply, so I did. I told Cassandra and Jerome that I applied and that we had a slim chance of getting in, but that we should start working towards launch on that day anyway.

To give you a sense of how crazy this move was, let me tell you where we were at almost exactly a month ago. We had no front end design and pretty much nil on the front end development. The back end was well on it’s way to being set up, but on a saner schedule, it was probably about 6-8 weeks out. Our core technology, which you will see on Tuesday if you tune in, was designed-ish, but not tested and definitely not implemented.

Basically, we were probably at around 20% towards a launch and, once again in a sane – but fast paced – schedule, we would be launching in about 3 months or so.

I asked my team to compress that to ONE MONTH.

I didn’t know this, but they’ve now told me they were having conversations when I wasn’t there asking one another, “Is she freakin’ nuts?”

I am. I have to agree with them.

But here we are. We are sitting in the audience of TechCrunch Disrupt, watching the proceedings. We are up tomorrow afternoon at 3:30pm PT officially unveiling what we are doing with the world. I need to pinch myself. I’m excited and nervous all at once. We have a great demo, a great story and we believe strongly in what we are doing. It’s pretty awesome to be here.

I knew when I signed up with only a month to build, I was putting a huge amount of strain on the team. I didn’t know how we’d fare. I was concerned that we couldn’t manage it. We are a relatively new team. We’ve never worked together. Some of the members of the team, like William Hutter (designer in France), I *just* met. I’ve been part of stressful do-or-die startup launches before, but besides Cassandra, no one else in the team had the boiler room experience. When I mentioned long days, no sleep and high stress as being a necessary evil over the month, nobody looked like they were ready to sign up for such a task.

But they did. And wow. I’m blown away by this amazing (but small) team of fabulous people I work with. They pulled long hours. They went above and beyond taking this on. They made this dream their own. We worked like a real startup. Everyone was invested and committed. There were breakdowns, but when it was over, we’d pick ourselves up, exchange words of support (and sometimes hugs) and get right back on track.

I’m super proud of what we’ll be demo-ing tomorrow and launching in the next few weeks. I’m REALLY blown away that we are one of 25 startups presenting picked out of 1000+! And I feel super fortunate to work with Yanik (lead developer), William (designer/front end developer), Joy (Architect), Jerome (CTO & Co-founder) and Cassandra (COO & Co-founder). I could not think of a better, smarter, more talented, harder working group of people. Thank you for getting us here.

Written by: Richard Herman

The White House has once again announced its commitment to immigration law reform in early 2010. So far, however, there is no sign that the administration, the Congress, or any other national leaders have learned the lessons from past attempts on this issue, most notably the ugly debate and legislative failure in 2007.

Ask people on the street what they think of when they hear the word “immigrant” — particularly with 10% unemployment in the country —- and you will hear statements like: “They take our jobs,” “They bring crime,” “They steal our health care,” “They don’t learn English.”

Americans hear the word “immigrant” and imagine the worst. They think of illegal immigrants, competition for jobs and the stamping out of American culture.

They don’t think of the tendency of immigrants–especially today’s immigrants– to create jobs, to revitalize communities, and to adopt and strengthen American culture, because no one is reminding them of this.

Humanitarian arguments to legalize 12 million undocumented immigrants dominate the public discourse on immigration law reform. This is a mistake.

Instead of focusing on illegal immigrants, policy-makers should focus on legal immigrants–the vast majority of all immigrants–and their power as an economic engine. Economic policy has never driven immigration debates —- that must change.

In the new book, Immigrant, Inc. —- Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs Are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker) (John Wiley, November, 2009), which I co-wrote with Robert L. Smith, we document how immigrants have created millions of jobs for Americans and now represent the most powerful job-creating force today.

Consider the following:

• Immigrants are almost twice as likely as native-born Americans to start a business.
• Immigrants are twice as likely as native-born Americans to file for a U.S. patent.
• Immigrants constitute the majority of Ph.D. candidates in many science and engineering programs at U.S. universities.
• Immigrants founded more than half of the high-tech companies in Silicon Valley, and twenty-five percent nationwide.
• Many brilliant immigrants are turned away from this country because of an immigration system that does not value their skills.

To succeed in a knowledge-based economy, America needs an advanced-degreed, entrepreneurial, and globally-connected population. Today’s immigrants bring these skills to the table — with aces. Their world-class talents translate into the creation of new industries and generations of new jobs for Americans.

Immigration reform would also inject billions of dollars into the economy. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that $66 billion in new revenue over 10 years would have been generated if supporters of the 2006 immigration reform bill had succeeded in legalizing most undocumented immigrants.

Jobs and fiscal responsibility —– this should be the message —– not earned amnesty and candlelight vigils.

Recently, syndicated columnist Neal Peirce of The Washington Post Writers Group argued that a new line of thought could drive a more productive discussion. “The mere fact that immigrants are an asset, not a liability, puts a whole new face on the Lou Dobbs-style attacks on America’s 12 million undocumented immigrants,” he wrote.

Welcoming immigrant innovators and entrepreneurs is “a virtually guaranteed stimulus to our economy and to our creative capacity for this century,” Peirce argues.

The problem is, it’s hard for the innovators and entrepreneurs to get in. The current immigration system reserves only 9% of the coveted “green cards” for highly-skilled or investor immigrants. Instead of waiting in a years-long line, more and more super talent is leaving the U.S. or deciding not to come in the first place. That’s why reform is essential.

So, while the right-wing begins the public outcry on undocumented immigrants or problems with H1B visas, the pro-immigration side should not allow the powerful, economic issues to be forgotten.

A job-creating message will soften the conversation, inject rationality into the discussion, and increase the chances of something getting passed. The White House should help coordinate a public education campaign that explains how smart immigration is good for America, especially in a smart economy.

To get that message out, they should employ the services of some immigrants who have been quite busy lately: People like Sergey Brin, who co-founded Google, Andy Grove, who gave us Intel, or Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems.

The President could talk about immigrant-founded companies like Dow Chemical, DuPont, Pfizer, Proctor & Gamble, Carnegie (later U.S.) Steel. He should remind America that immigration has historically been our competitive advantage.

That’s a fact that is more real today than ever before.

* * * * * *

Richard Herman is the co-author of Immigrant Inc.— Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker (John Wiley & Sons, November, 2009)

I decided to sit down and record my trepidation/enthusiasm for being a 36 year-old woman in this changing, odd world of gender. Tell me if you relate, disagree or have something to add.
_____
ADDED NOTE: The point here isn’t to flatter me (have received the ‘you have nothing to worry about’ comments from many men) – I say right in the video I feel like I look young and attractive – the point here is that ‘middle-age’ is a truly liminal, odd place to be…ESPECIALLY as a single, accomplished woman. It feels like it’s between REAL ages and not an age in itself (a time to be celebrated). It IS a time to be celebrated, but it’s also a transition. Something between being young and irresponsible (self-focused, feeling invincible, etc.) and older and reflective (looking back, realizing mistakes, settling down, etc.). I also didn’t get deep into this, but there is a serious double-standard when it comes to what is expected of a single woman my age. We need to look like we’re in our 20′s and not be too successful as not to compete with men our age. I just don’t think men have the same pressure looks wise (I’ve seen overweight bald men who have power get all the babes – but an overweight unattractive woman with power is not equally lusted after).

Just a few months ago, I wrote about how somebodys are nobodys that got lucky, musing on the cult of fame and trying to put a person’s status into question as a reason to fawn over him/her. I got back a great reaction (many people didn’t like the idea of ‘luck’). So yesterday, when perusing through some links, I found an article that summarizes an actual scientific study of lucky vs. non-lucky people. It turns out that there IS such thing as lucky people, but it’s not some sort of mystical fate playing its hand at work after all. Instead, ‘lucky people’ are those who are really observant and open to opportunities.

Bingo. From the article:

“And so it is with luck – unlucky people miss chance opportunities because they are too focused on looking for something else. They go to parties intent on finding their perfect partner and so miss opportunities to make good friends. They look through newspapers determined to find certain types of job advertisements and as a result miss other types of jobs. Lucky people are more relaxed and open, and therefore see what is there rather than just what they are looking for.”

I just about fell out of my chair reading this as it feeds right into the whole ‘embrace the chaos’ mantra I’ve been chanting for the past 4 years of my life (ever since I began getting ‘luckier’). The researcher, Richard Wiseman is a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, goes on to highlight four main characteristics of lucky people:

1. Lucky people are skilled at creating and noticing chance opportunities;
2. Lucky people make lucky decisions by listening to their intuition;
3. Lucky people create self-fulfilling prophesies via positive expectations; and
4. Lucky people adopt a resilient attitude that transforms bad luck into good.

This is fascinating, but unsurprising to me. I’ve read other research that says that positive ‘Pollyanna’ type people go much further in the world. I also know from personal experience that focusing on negative bits tends to create more negative outcomes while keeping my spirits up sails me through rough patches and leads to new and awesome opportunities. I’ve also observed many people who seem to attract negative drama and, therefore, never move forward. These people often refer to themselves as ‘unlucky’. No coincidence.

I’m definitely interested in picking up Wiseman’s book, The Luck Factor: The Four Essential Principles (another coincidence? ) to find out how he backs up his theories with experiments. A couple of further observations I loved from the article:

• Lucky people follow their ‘gut’ feeling rather than the rational side of a choice.
• Unlucky people stick to a routine – same route, same people at parties, etc – they don’t like to venture outside of their comfort zone.
• No matter what misfortune occurs to a lucky person, he/she will tend to look on the bright side of things. (“broke my leg? heh. no problem! at least it wasn’t my neck!”)

I guess it’s true that you make your own luck. I know that ever since I’ve begun pushing myself out of my comfort zone, my luck has changed. Or rather, that I changed my luck.

I’m super excited and very honoured to be part of Le Web ’09 in Paris this year (as an official blogger)! I haven’t been back for years and Les Blogs (pre-Le Web) was also my very first trip to Paris. I know, I know. I kept saying it for the past year and a half: “I’ll be back” and I even booked flights and coordinated with friends. But last minute something would come up: another conference or a deadline or I was just flat broke. But this time I’m so committed that I applied to be an official blogger and now that I’m accepted, I’m taking my role very seriously.

I can’t wait to see my old friends from Silicon Sentier and FINALLY visit La Cantine. I plan to come in a few days early to shake off my jetlag and wander aimlessly around one of my favourite cities. Then I’ll also be bright-eyed to see the awesome lineup, including Laura Fitton (who just launched the amazing OneForty) and Violet Blue! Also great to see Ben Metcalfe speaking as it was him I first met at Les Blogs in 2005 and who caused the big hubub! I think I might have to organize a ‘Bullshit’ mob.

Either way, I’m looking forward to being in Paris, going to Le Web, seeing old friends, eating some nice food and drinking some good wine and reconnecting.

If you want to join me at Les Blogs, use the discount code: BLOG09 for 10% off!

I was reading an article in the New York Times about painful shoes today and it felt as if I was looking at a former version of myself. Throughout the comments and reviews, people defended the practice of beating up one’s feet for fashion, such as:

Contrary to popular belief, today’s extreme shoes are not designed to torture women’s feet. Pain is not the goal, it is just an unfortunate side effect — collateral damage? — to the visual impact of the shoe’s extreme design. – Valerie Steele

Wearable art? Creating illusion and desire is a way that a woman seeks power? Increase in height equals increase in self-esteem? Whatever it is, I’ve been part of it for my entire life.

I recall my Mother telling me when I was younger that she sought out comfort, not glamour. I also recall thinking that she was an alien for doing so. But I find myself buying for comfort more and more these days and not feeling alien in the least.

And I don’t know why this article sent me down this path, but it made me start thinking of all of the ways we externalize our power. And somehow I thought about religion and dating and politics and identity and painful shoes all being part of the same system of externalized validation.

Religion, from my perspective, is a way that people can have hope and faith and believe in something beyond what they see to validate a way of being in the world. Dogma, mantra, karma – whichever – it helps guide people externally to do ‘the right thing’.

Dating is a complicated arena full of people looking for love. Only, I have observed that there are very few amazing matches that result in the dance. And, from my own experience (being part of those mismatches), I feel like we settle too quickly into situations that aren’t good fits for us because being with that other person externally validates our worth. I know…this seems like a terribly negative view of love, but I’ve finally gotten to a point in my life that I’m happy enough with myself that I don’t have to settle for someone who doesn’t complement me.

Politics? Left or right? Socialist? Capitalist (arguably, not even a political stance, but used nonetheless)? Libertarian? Humanist? Whatever all of those mean, are we really so in love with categories that need to file ourselves into one or the other? How did we become such experts in what the ‘right’ way to run a country is? Not from personal experience. It’s learned. It’s transfered. It’s external.

Identity is a wider reaching ball of muddle. I’m a woman. What does that mean? Why are so many pre-conceived notions packed around that definition and why do I need to put them on as uncomfortable as they are? I’m just as guilty as anyone for generalizing identities to make a point (i.e. Canadians are more community focused, etc.). I know where it’s useful. But I also know where it ceases to be useful. These external generalizations of identity are good for figuring out what we have in common, but they cease to be useful when we start expecting individuals to act a certain way because of the generalization.

Which brings me to these shoes. A good step back (so to speak) would reveal to us that wearing 12″ heels or pointy toes or strappy sandals that we can’t walk in more than 1 block and cut our feet to shreds is the unsexiest thing we can possibly ever do. I was at drinks with some friends of mine the other night and they showed me a photo of a male friend who is single and who makes his dates fill out a test before he’ll go out with them. I looked at the photo and thought, “This man is bald, overweight and not particularly handsome, how does he have the power to administer a test to women who desire to date him? Would an overweight, unattractive woman be able to do the same?” And when I read the article on the shoes, I thought, “Oh geez, I balked at the test, but that’s what these shoes are.” Another test. A way to seek external validation that we are worthy…to be looked at…to be desired…to have someone with comfortable shoes and way more power ask us out on a date.

I’m learning slowly to find my power from within. It’s easier said than done. There is so much to unpack in terms of identity and messages and everything else that leads to self-doubt and feeling unworthy in the world. I’m a million miles away from achieving full-on internalized validation, but what I can say is that I don’t require religion to tell me what is right and make me a better person in this world, I don’t require a political label to define how I believe we should be treating people in our countries, I’m done with dating people who don’t fit and am more than happy to be single for as long as it takes (even if it never happens), I work hard to unpack notions of identity for myself and the people I meet everyday and I won’t wear shoes that hurt me anymore. I’m more desirable without them.